Legislative functions

The power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for the without the consent of the House of Lords. The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month. Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and do not have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a known as the , which means that the House of Lords does not seek to oppose legislation promised in the Government's election .

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or , nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts, as aforementioned.

Hence, as the power of the House of Lords has been severely curtailed by statute and by practice, the House of Commons is clearly the more powerful chamber of Parliament.

Judicial function

The judicial functions of the House of Lords originate from the ancient role of the Curia Regis as a body that addressed the petitions of the King's subjects.

The judicial functions of the House of Lords are exercised not by the whole House, but by a group of "Law Lords". The bulk of the House's judicial business is conducted by the twelve Lords of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Hence, as the power of the House of Lords has been severely curtailed by statute and by practice, the House of Commons is clearly the more powerful chamber of Parliament.

Judicial function

The judicial functions of the House of Lords originate from the ancient role of the Curia Regis as a body that addressed the petitions of the King's subjects.

The judicial functions of the House of Lords are exercised not by the whole House, but by a group of "Law Lords". The bulk of the House's judicial business is conducted by the twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, who are specifically appointed for this purpose under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act. The judicial functions may also be exercised by Lords of Appeal (other members of the House who happen to have held high judicial office). No Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or Lord of Appeal may sit judicially beyond the age of seventy-five. The judicial business of the Lords is supervised by the Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and his or her deputy, the Second Senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.

The jurisdiction of the House of Lords extends, in civil and in criminal cases, to appeals from the courts of England and Wales, and of Northern Ireland. From Scotland, appeals are possible only in civil cases; Scotland's is the highest court in criminal matters. The House of Lords is not the United Kingdom's only court of last resort; in some cases, the Privy Council performs such a function. The jurisdiction of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom, however, is narrower than that of the House of Lords; it encompasses appeals from ecclesiastical courts, issues related to , disputes under the , and a few other minor matters.

Not all Law Lords sit to hear cases; rather, since cases have been heard by panels known as Appellate Committees, each of which normally consists of five members (selected by the Senior Lord). An Appellate Committee hearing an important case may consist of even more members. Though Appellate Committees meet in separate committee rooms, judgement is given in the Lords Chamber itself. No further appeal lies from the House of Lords unless the matter concerns European Law, in which case an appeal can be made to the , with decisions due to its more purposive approach often differing from the House of Lords, who prefer a more literal approach to the legal system.

A distinct judicial function—one in which the whole House, rather than just the Law Lords, may participate—is that of trying . Impeachments are brought by the House of Commons, and are tried in the House of Lords; a conviction requires only a majority of the Lords voting. Impeachments, however, are essentially obsolete; the last impeachment was that of in .

Similarly, the House of Lords was once the court that tried peers charged with high treason or felony. The House would be presided over not by the Lord Chancellor, but by the , an official especially appointed for the occasion of the trial. If Parliament was not in session, then peers could be tried in a separate court, known as the Lord High Steward's Court. Only peers, their wives, and their unremarried widows were entitled to trials in the House of Lords or the Lord High Steward's Court; the Lords Spiritual were tried in Ecclesiastical Courts. In , the right of peers and peeresses to be tried in such special courts was abolished; now, they may be tried in the same courts as others.

The will lead to the creation of a separate , to which the judicial function of the House of Lords, and some of the judicial functions of the , would be transferred. In addition, the office of Lord Chancellor will be reformed, to remove his ability to act as both a government minister and a judge. This is motivated in part by concerns that the historical admixture of legislative, judicial, and executive power, may not be in conformance with the requirements of the (a judicial officer having legislative or executive power not being likely to be considered sufficiently impartial to provide a fair trial), and in any case are considered undesirable according to modern constitutional theory concerning the separation of powers. The new Supreme Court will be located in .